• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Roots of Muslim Rage

Oozlefinch said:
Of course they were ruled from France and England, I never said they were not.

However, it was the very intent of the Mandate that this only happen until they were ready for independence. And there are other major differences as well.

In a Mandate like this, Local Law applied. The only reason for the oversight is to allow the new nation to set up a functioning government and get on it's feet.

In a Colony, it is permanent. The laws of the parent country is all that matters, other then what they choose to give them. Local governments are only for local purposes.

In a Mandate, the land and it's resources belong to the people. If a French company exploits the resources, they have to pay the local government.

In a Colony, all resources belong to the home country. Companies pay the home country for resource rights, and do whatever they like, wealth returning to the home country.

Now there are a great many differences between the two, but those are the biggest ones.

Now did French companies get preferences and good deals in setting up in the French Mandate? Of course they did, I am not stupid. But the fact is the moneys were paid to the Local Government, not to France. Compare say the situation in the French Mandate with that in French Indochina, and it should be obvious what I am talking about.

So it is much-much more then semantics. Yes, the French "ruled", which is a far-far cry from the French "owned". And if people can not understand the differences and want to use it to beat up on the French or others, then to hell with them for the most part.

The United States "ruled" Cuba and the Philippines as well, but you do not hear them bitching about it decades later (well, Cuba does but then again they bitch about almost everything).
Click to expand...

There you go again, bitch-slapping me with facts and documented history! :doh Y'know, you'd think by now I woulda gotten a clue to not argue with you using stuff that I really think I know since you have developed a habit of re-edjimicating me....
 
Jack Hays said:
I've been to Erbil.
Click to expand...

I do believe you. What kind of relationship do the Kurds in general have with Wahabbi Sunnis from Saudi Arabia, or with the Shi'a Iranians? Come to think of it, they probably have decent relations with the Iranians since IIRC the Kurds were not considered particularly supportive of Saddam in the war with Iran.

But my point is, I strongly doubt that they're working with or coordinating with Iran (much less Saudi Arabia) in their attacks against ISIS.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
There you go again, bitch-slapping me with facts and documented history! :doh Y'know, you'd think by now I woulda gotten a clue to not argue with you using stuff that I really think I know since you have developed a habit of re-edjimicating me....
Click to expand...

*laughs*

Remember, mostly what I try to do is blast through propaganda and false assumptions, and describe the reality without the smoke and mirrors.

Were the UK and French overlords of the Middle East during the Mandate? Sure, and they took advantage of it in favorable trade conditions. However, it was from the very beginning a temporary measure, not permanent. And any money paid went to the local people, not the Mandate Leaders. That is a major difference between the Mandate and a Colony.

And remember, the US has had Mandates in the past. In fact, we pretty much still do, with the vast majority of them choosing to remain tied to the US as it is benificial to them. Others have become Independent, but still keep at least some legal ties to the US for defense and trade purposes. The last of the Overseas Territories we absolutely controlled that I can think of is Okinawa. We could have kept those islands, Japan turned over all control of them to the US following WWII. But the will of the Ryukyu islands was to be returned to Japan, so in 1972 the US did exactly that. But if the people of Okinawa had wanted to become independent, the outcome would probably have been a return to being the independent nation of Ryukyu.

However, do not think I argue, I do not. I debate, and enjoy doing it. To me the goal is an exchange of information, where hopefully both sides come away with more then what they entered with. But as always my main interest is simply accuracy.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
I do believe you. What kind of relationship do the Kurds in general have with Wahabbi Sunnis from Saudi Arabia, or with the Shi'a Iranians? Come to think of it, they probably have decent relations with the Iranians since IIRC the Kurds were not considered particularly supportive of Saddam in the war with Iran.
Click to expand...

Of course the Kurds were also slaughtered by Saddam, might have had something to do with it.

The Kurds have long been fiercly independent, and tried to keep themselves seperate from the Arabs and Turks who often controlled them. Many do not even realize that Saladin, the main opponant of the Crusaders, was a Kurd.
 
Jack Hays said:
I have had to post this often enough that I decided it deserved its own thread. This was written in 1990, before Desert Storm. Islamic terrorism does not result from anything we have done or not done. Rather, the poverty and weakness of Muslim lands compared to the wealth and power of the West seems to mock Allah, and by extension those who follow Him. They don't "hate us for our freedom" but they hate us for our wealth and power, which are rooted in our freedom, and for their own weakness and poverty, which make them feel humiliated.

The Roots of Muslim Rage - 90.09

ragehd.gif

Why so many Muslims deeply resent the West, and why their bitterness will not easily be mollified

by Bernard Lewis
The online version of this article appears in two parts. Click here to go to part two.
IN one of his letters Thomas Jefferson remarked that in matters of religion "the maxim of civil government" should be reversed and we should rather say, "Divided we stand, united, we fall." In this remark Jefferson was setting forth with classic terseness an idea that has come to be regarded as essentially American: the separation of Church and State. This idea was not entirely new; it had some precedents in the writings of Spinoza, Locke, and the philosophers of the European Enlightenment. It was in the United States, however, that the principle was first given the force of law and gradually, in the course of two centuries, became a reality. . . .
Islam is one of the world's great religions. Let me be explicit about what I, as a historian of Islam who is not a Muslim, mean by that. Islam has brought comfort and peace of mind to countless millions of men and women. It has given dignity and meaning to drab and impoverished lives. It has taught people of different races to live in brotherhood and people of different creeds to live side by side in reasonable tolerance. It inspired a great civilization in which others besides Muslims lived creative and useful lives and which, by its achievement, enriched the whole world. But Islam, like other religions, has also known periods when it inspired in some of its followers a mood of hatred and violence. It is our misfortune that part, though by no means all or even most, of the Muslim world is now going through such a period, and that much, though again not all, of that hatred is directed against us. . . .
Click to expand...

Horse crap... If that was true, then they'd be attacking the rich oil states in the ME first and having a big revolution of their own. REALLY dumb article...
 
Oozlefinch said:
Of course the Kurds were also slaughtered by Saddam, might have had something to do with it.

The Kurds have long been fiercly independent, and tried to keep themselves seperate from the Arabs and Turks who often controlled them. Many do not even realize that Saladin, the main opponant of the Crusaders, was a Kurd.
Click to expand...

I knew Saladin was a Kurd, and I wonder how many of our fellow Americans understand the mercy and honor he afforded King Richard the Lion-Hearted.
 
Oozlefinch said:
*laughs*

Remember, mostly what I try to do is blast through propaganda and false assumptions, and describe the reality without the smoke and mirrors.

Were the UK and French overlords of the Middle East during the Mandate? Sure, and they took advantage of it in favorable trade conditions. However, it was from the very beginning a temporary measure, not permanent. And any money paid went to the local people, not the Mandate Leaders. That is a major difference between the Mandate and a Colony.

And remember, the US has had Mandates in the past. In fact, we pretty much still do, with the vast majority of them choosing to remain tied to the US as it is benificial to them. Others have become Independent, but still keep at least some legal ties to the US for defense and trade purposes. The last of the Overseas Territories we absolutely controlled that I can think of is Okinawa. We could have kept those islands, Japan turned over all control of them to the US following WWII. But the will of the Ryukyu islands was to be returned to Japan, so in 1972 the US did exactly that. But if the people of Okinawa had wanted to become independent, the outcome would probably have been a return to being the independent nation of Ryukyu.

However, do not think I argue, I do not. I debate, and enjoy doing it. To me the goal is an exchange of information, where hopefully both sides come away with more then what they entered with. But as always my main interest is simply accuracy.
Click to expand...

And it's apparent that I need to be more careful to be more accurate - and as always, I do appreciate the courteous rebuke, for it removes some of my ignorance. Thanks!
 
Glen Contrarian said:
I do believe you. What kind of relationship do the Kurds in general have with Wahabbi Sunnis from Saudi Arabia, or with the Shi'a Iranians? Come to think of it, they probably have decent relations with the Iranians since IIRC the Kurds were not considered particularly supportive of Saddam in the war with Iran.

But my point is, I strongly doubt that they're working with or coordinating with Iran (much less Saudi Arabia) in their attacks against ISIS.
Click to expand...

The Kurds are primarily at odds with the Iranians and Turks because of national oppression. They actually have no problem with the Saudis because they oppose Iran.
 
faithful_servant said:
Horse crap... If that was true, then they'd be attacking the rich oil states in the ME first and having a big revolution of their own. REALLY dumb article...
Click to expand...

They would if they could. I'm sure the thousands of scholars who consider this the most important article ever written on this topic would love to hear from you.
 
jack hays said:
the kurds are primarily at odds with the iranians and turks because of national oppression. They actually have no problem with the saudis because they oppose iran.
Click to expand...

SORRY FOR BAD ENGLISH
1:
its wrong.mayby kurdS rebel in syria and turkey like pkk have big problem with iran regime
but people havnt big problem with iranian.
Kurds living in 24 state of iran.more than 8 million
for example im persian.but my cousnt is half kurd.because of her mother
kurdish ,persian,azeri,...... Are merged in iran.

2:
YOU ALWAYS WATCHING KURDISH REBEL INCLUDE HOT ARMY GIRL IN MEDIA LIKE :
53989919819b3e68ede4264133f02793.jpg


BUT SOME OF THIS KURD REBEL HAVE EXTREMIC ISLAM RULE.
THEY STONING WOMAN FOR CHEATING NOW.BUT EVEN IRAN REGIME DONT IT.
 
Last edited:
Glen Contrarian said:
Uh-uh. The great majority of the Jews left. Those who remained behind were what we would today call Palestinians. You can't say, "hey, we lived there for thousands of years, yeah, most of us left for over a thousand years but now we want our land back." And while many were forced out, many also left voluntarily.

Nope. Your argument makes no sense.
Click to expand...

They did not just leave, they were mostly forced out by arabs who controlled the territory, excluding the first few dynasties which allowed them and christians to live there, which pretty much ended with the crusades, constant fighting over the region and the christian crusaders slaughtering the jews in their homeland.

Even more noteworthy the dalfour declaration was made before the palestine mandate, as early as 1917 the british were promising a jewish state in palestine. So the promise to the jews over the land existed prior to any promise to the arabs. Even further the land was almost completely abandoned, with much of its current population migrating afterwards.


Even more noteworthy is that so many palestinian arabs fled israel despite israel urging them to stay and live peacefully, Yet no country will accept them, and does so purposefully in order to demonize israel, even when israel allowed them to exist there, while other countries they fled to refused to allow them land, or citizenship etc just so they could blame israel.

Most jews chose not to leave israel peacefully, most were forced out by threat of death, and most that remained hid their jewish identity to avoid persecution. In modern day society, if we had ran any group out of a country it would be terror, or genocide, or ethnic cleansing, but when it is against the jews, who have been persecuted since their existence, people tend to side against them, even if logic and proof sides against them.
 
Jack Hays said:
They would if they could. I'm sure the thousands of scholars who consider this the most important article ever written on this topic would love to hear from you.
Click to expand...

There's nothing stopping them from doing attacking anyone they want to. They CHOOSE to attack the "Crusaders" because we represent a different way of thinking. One that is diametrically opposed to thier way of thinking. We stive for freedom, they strive for bondage. We strive to better ourselves, they strive to return to a culture from ~500 years ago. That's why they attack us.
 
faithful_servant said:
There's nothing stopping them from doing attacking anyone they want to. They CHOOSE to attack the "Crusaders" because we represent a different way of thinking. One that is diametrically opposed to thier way of thinking. We stive for freedom, they strive for bondage. We strive to better ourselves, they strive to return to a culture from ~500 years ago. That's why they attack us.
Click to expand...

You apparently don't realize you are agreeing with Lewis.
 
beerftw said:
Most jews chose not to leave israel peacefully, most were forced out by threat of death, and most that remained hid their jewish identity to avoid persecution.
Click to expand...

Actually, it is generally accepted that most of them over time converted to Islam.

One of the interesting things about genetics is that it can find genetic markers identifying different people in how they are related.

One of these genetic markers is known as Cohen Modal Haplotype (CMH), commonly called the "Cohen Gene". And the non-Jewish groups that show the highest prevelence of this gene are the Kurds, and Muslims in Oman, Yemen, as well as Armenians and Bedouins.

Even if they "went underground", that kind of cohesion can not really last past a couple of generations. Eventually the "pretending to be Muslims" will become reality among the majority.
 
beerftw said:
They did not just leave, they were mostly forced out by arabs who controlled the territory, excluding the first few dynasties which allowed them and christians to live there, which pretty much ended with the crusades, constant fighting over the region and the christian crusaders slaughtering the jews in their homeland.

Even more noteworthy the dalfour declaration was made before the palestine mandate, as early as 1917 the british were promising a jewish state in palestine. So the promise to the jews over the land existed prior to any promise to the arabs. Even further the land was almost completely abandoned, with much of its current population migrating afterwards.


Even more noteworthy is that so many palestinian arabs fled israel despite israel urging them to stay and live peacefully, Yet no country will accept them, and does so purposefully in order to demonize israel, even when israel allowed them to exist there, while other countries they fled to refused to allow them land, or citizenship etc just so they could blame israel.

Most jews chose not to leave israel peacefully, most were forced out by threat of death, and most that remained hid their jewish identity to avoid persecution. In modern day society, if we had ran any group out of a country it would be terror, or genocide, or ethnic cleansing, but when it is against the jews, who have been persecuted since their existence, people tend to side against them, even if logic and proof sides against them.
Click to expand...

And the very same argument can be used against America for our treatment of Native Americans. Would you support, say, the U.N. deciding to establish, say, Native American nations (and not the faux "nations" they have today, but actual nations with passports, etc.) throughout much of America? Of course, this would include much of your home state of Texas.

In other words, are you guilty of what your great-great-grandparents may have done? Of course not...you yourself are under no moral obligation to apologize for what your ancestors may or may not have done to drive out the Native Americans (or for slavery, for that matter), AND you are under no moral obligation to give YOUR land back to the Native Americans.

Likewise, the Palestinians were under no moral obligation to give THEIR land back to the Jews...but they were not given a choice - England took it from them and gave it to the Jews.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Last I recall, the Kurds sided with Iran in the Iran/Iraq war.
Click to expand...

Having been simultaneously occupied by Turks, Iranians and Iraqis, the Kurds have shifted among the three trying to find a path to some expression of their national identity.
 
Oozlefinch said:
Actually, it is generally accepted that most of them over time converted to Islam.

One of the interesting things about genetics is that it can find genetic markers identifying different people in how they are related.

One of these genetic markers is known as Cohen Modal Haplotype (CMH), commonly called the "Cohen Gene". And the non-Jewish groups that show the highest prevelence of this gene are the Kurds, and Muslims in Oman, Yemen, as well as Armenians and Bedouins.

Even if they "went underground", that kind of cohesion can not really last past a couple of generations. Eventually the "pretending to be Muslims" will become reality among the majority.
Click to expand...

The bolded is quite true, quite a few who did not flee eventually gave up and converted, while some remained countless generations in secrecy. This is not exclusive to muslim rule in palestine, it also happened during the crusades when jews hid their faith to avoid being killed, during the inquisition when jews muslims non catholic christians and pagans either fled or falsely admitted conversion, though many eventually converted, through public pressure or from fear of torture.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
And the very same argument can be used against America for our treatment of Native Americans. Would you support, say, the U.N. deciding to establish, say, Native American nations (and not the faux "nations" they have today, but actual nations with passports, etc.) throughout much of America? Of course, this would include much of your home state of Texas.

In other words, are you guilty of what your great-great-grandparents may have done? Of course not...you yourself are under no moral obligation to apologize for what your ancestors may or may not have done to drive out the Native Americans (or for slavery, for that matter), AND you are under no moral obligation to give YOUR land back to the Native Americans.

Likewise, the Palestinians were under no moral obligation to give THEIR land back to the Jews...but they were not given a choice - England took it from them and gave it to the Jews.
Click to expand...

Ummm maybe you should research a little bit before you type, the native americans were given multiple sovereign nations within america granted through treaty, hence why indian reservations are deemed as sovereign nations, and only need follow federal laws to the degree mandated by treaty.


And if you wish to use the they owned it logic, they did not, the ottoman turks owned it, and the british took it from them, so do not play the its ok to take from them game but its not ok to take from them game, If you feel prior arab ownership overrides thousands of years of history, then the british taking it through war by the same means the arabs did overrides all arab ties as well. To continue the point the arabs did not own it at the time, the turkish empire did, and they lost, and the victor promised then granted the jews a country of their own, in their historic location.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom